What's wrong w/ protecting the environment?

[diogenes73]

When I was a much younger man I loved to gamble and went on many
trips to Las Vegas. I don't any more,but while I was there I saw many
huge bets being made,of course none of those were by me.
But you are the biggest high roller I have ever encountered.
You are willing to wager the possible lives of your family,your children and
grandchildren and perhaps the welfare of the planet on the word of a guy
who has a BS in Economics from Wharton,over the opinion of 191 countries
who have signed the Paris Agreements, and the opinion of the Union of Concerned
Scientists with over 200,000 members many of those with PHD's.I'am pretty
sure a discussion of this with it's far reaching implications would not be
described as simplistic.
How exactly did you become so convinced?

 

[Darth Omar]

When I was a much younger man I loved to gamble and went on many
trips to Las Vegas. I don't any more,but while I was there I saw many
huge bets being made,of course none of those were by me.
But you are the biggest high roller I have ever encountered.
You are willing to wager the possible lives of your family,your children and
grandchildren and perhaps the welfare of the planet on the word of a guy
who has a BS in Economics from Wharton,over the opinion of 191 countries
who have signed the Paris Agreements, and the opinion of the Union of Concerned
Scientists with over 200,000 members many of those with PHD's.I'am pretty
sure a discussion of this with it's far reaching implications would not be
described as simplistic.
How exactly did you become so convinced?

I've become increasingly skeptical as I've gotten older. I've seen too many pet theories fall by the wayside.

And science isn't a democracy.

 

[anatta]

Friends of mine built a home on a 3.5 A lot, flat and bare, weeds and grass, with at least 30 feet of forest on 3 sides...and the EPA will not allow them to use 1/3 acre of that land, its to be left to nature, they can't even plant grass.....thats insane....there is no valid reason for that restriction....

curious as to why the EPA is making that decision. Is it something to do with waterways?
I cant think of any other "reason" the EPA would be so involved in a local zoning.
That's exactly the kind of permitting/restrictions the states traditionally have done, and are perfectly capable of doing.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

This is where I generally break with conservatives. I think we need to protect the enviorment. Climate change or not.

Cons tend to feel that Enviro regulations stifle business. And there are EPA overreaches. But I do see a need for enviro regulations. Companies will NOT regulate themselves when it comes to the environment.

The bolded is fact, and that's just the nature of capitalism. Profit will always win out at the priority.

In general, that's okay, but not when it comes to our planet. Businesses have to be regulated - there need to be rules.

 

[Irish]

What crap, 'break with conservatives".?....who the hell is demanding dirty water and smoggy air or pouring oil into the rivers....no one is , you idiot, no one.

Not sure I ever said that. You should read before you start calling your allies idiots there Nova.

 

[NOVA]

The bolded is fact, and that's just the nature of capitalism. Profit will always win out at the priority.

In general, that's okay, but not when it comes to our planet. Businesses have to be regulated - there need to be rules.

And they are, in EVERYTHING they do.....there is no facet of being in business that is not regulated to the degree of being over regulated.

From the raw materials to the finished product to who they hire, what they pay, how must treat employees, how they are taxed, the safety of the product.....everything.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Look I have no love loss for EPA but the U.S. is not the U.K. and you're just factually wrong. Virtually all regulations that come out of the industry are vetted multiple times for public feedback and proposed regulations written and revised multiple times based on public feedback long before they ever come even close to being implemented and when that does happen the U.S. EPA establishes national standards that set a baseline standard for compliance that all States use as MINIMUM standards. The States are quite free, and most do so, to have their own set of standards that are just as stringent or more so than the federal standards.

This notion that US EPA just waves it's wand based on its ivory towered ideology and coerces all to comply regardless is just divorced from reality. It aint the way it works and it never has been.

Yet the EPA has now taken upon itself to preside over all stretches of water in the US regardless. I am sorry but the natural tendency of organisations is to empire build and that's what is happening here with the WOTUS rule.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...le-is-more-overreach-by-the-epa/#65f71ce66def

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[cancel2 2022]

I've become increasingly skeptical as I've gotten older. I've seen too many pet theories fall by the wayside.

And science isn't a democracy.

No it isn't, appeal to authority and blathering on and on about a consensus is little different to religion and idolatry. Remember all the fuss about temps going up last year despite being told that this was just an extreme El Nino the usual suspects started their typical panicking. Now the land satellite tropospheric data shows temps returning to normal. Even the Met Office HADCRUT4 database compiled from ground stations is showing a rapid cooling.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[PostmodernProphet]

When I was a much younger man I loved to gamble and went on many
trips to Las Vegas. I don't any more,but while I was there I saw many
huge bets being made,of course none of those were by me.
But you are the biggest high roller I have ever encountered.
You are willing to wager the possible lives of your family,your children and
grandchildren and perhaps the welfare of the planet on the word of a guy
who has a BS in Economics from Wharton,over the opinion of 191 countries
who have signed the Paris Agreements, and the opinion of the Union of Concerned
Scientists with over 200,000 members many of those with PHD's.I'am pretty
sure a discussion of this with it's far reaching implications would not be
described as simplistic.
How exactly did you become so convinced?

by paying attention to liberal lies long before a guy from Wharton got involved in politics.......

 

[canceled.2021.3]

I'm sure everyone WANTS a clean environment. Only some are actually interested in doing something about that.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Sorry.

Prove it

 

[cancel2 2022]

curious as to why the EPA is making that decision. Is it something to do with waterways?
I cant think of any other "reason" the EPA would be so involved in a local zoning.
That's exactly the kind of permitting/restrictions the states traditionally have done, and are perfectly capable of doing.

Look up WOTUS.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[Rune]

Youre in right wing lala land without a clue on how environmental laws and regulations work, how they're enforced and the consequences from lack of enforcement.

But hey, have it your way. If Pruitt is successful I should have no problem dumping a barrel of MEK in your backyard.

Methol Ethol Ketone?
Nasty stuff.
I imagine less than a half a cup full would ruin anatta's whole day.
That would be fun to watch.

 

[Rune]

really? cut back to 1990 levels?
how in the hell can we burn any fossil fuels and meet that draconian standard? Unfortunately i'm not all upon the technologies-
but it seems intuitively anti-growth standards

You are idiot.
We alteady cut back to 1990s levels.

 

[Rune]

well if you are going to be a jerk about it -forget it. It would be just as easy for you to provide a definition/link.
I gave you a lot of points to work with, but your dismissive snittiness means you are obviously not interested in discussions.
OK fine.
That's a reason Trump won the election, because of such elitistism. Let Pruitt do it from here.

Ah I am taking my ball and going home.
This is a debate forum you fycking loser.
Mott just handed you your ass.

 

[Darth Omar]

What this boils down to is there's no such thing as over-regulation or bureaucractic over reach to some people.

Even conservatives don't want polluted water and air [hard to believe, I know lol] so if and when the EPA 'under regulates' congress will step in and right the ship.

Which is exactly the way it's supposed to work. Under Obama the EPA was a rogue agency that operated contrary to the will of the people.

So we gave them Trump lol.

 

[iewitness]

I hope trump will tell the globalist damned of earth to take their paris agreement or accords or whatever else unlawful shit they can make up and shove it somewhere, anywhere.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

What this boils down to is there's no such thing as over-regulation or bureaucractic over reach to some people.

Even conservatives don't want polluted water and air [hard to believe, I know lol] so if and when the EPA 'under regulates' congress will step in and right the ship.

Which is exactly the way it's supposed to work. Under Obama the EPA was a rogue agency that operated contrary to the will of the people.

So we gave them Trump lol.

No, they won't. They all have businesses in their districts and lobbyists working them every day. The interests of Congress in particular are incredibly short-term; most are just concerned about the election 2 years down the line than they are about the planet 50 years down the line.

As I said in the OP, the environment is losing. Congress isn't going to save it.

 

[anatta]

Yet the EPA has now taken upon itself to preside over all stretches of water in the US regardless. I am sorry but the natural tendency of organisations is to empire build and that's what is happening here with the WOTUS rule.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...le-is-more-overreach-by-the-epa/#65f71ce66def

good link - i thought it was "interstate waters" but it's "navigable waters" that Congress intended to come under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
look at this hubris fr. link:

Repeated rebukes by the High Court have made no difference

Repeated rebukes by the High Court, including the last two initiated by our Foundation, have made no difference. In 2001, the Supreme Court rejected the agencies’ regulation of isolated, non-navigable waterbodies that read the term “navigable waters” out of the Act. In 2006, the Court also rejected the agencies’ sweeping assertion that it could regulate any water with a hydrological connection to a downstream navigable-in-fact water. And, in 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously condemned the EPA practice of issuing crippling fines and threats of criminal prosecution to homeowners without providing proof the CWA was violated and without affording the homeowners a judicial hearing to dispute EPA’s jurisdiction over their property. As Justice Alito observed: the “reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear” under EPA’s expansive reading such that “any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year” may be covered by it, “putting property owners at the agency’s mercy.”

Instead of accepting those pronouncements and demonstrating some restraint, the agencies’ current rule redefining “waters of the United States” greatly exceeds jurisdictional claims the High Court has already rejected. Compared to the draft we criticized last fall, the final rule made some cosmetic changes for political consumption, as well as some substantive changes, but the jurisdictional interpretations not only go well beyond any authorized by the CWA, they would be unconstitutional if Congress tried to confer such authority. For example, the final rule purports to exempt “puddles,” which is politically savvy. But even this concession is undermined since the rule expressly covers some water-filled depressions many people think of as puddles, including isolated “prairie potholes” in the Midwest, “vernal pools … located in parts of California” and various other small ponds if they meet certain conditions.

 

[cancel2 2022]

You are idiot.
We alteady cut back to 1990s levels.

Yes and that is mostly down to fracked gas and CCGT power. Gas is by far the cheapest, most dependable and cleanest way to cut down on CO2 emissions in the short to medium term. Maybe renewables might actually become more useful if P2G technology becomes available?

One of the most promising is the methanation of CO2 and hydrogen using the Sabatier reaction. The hydrogen from electrolysis could be combined with waste CO2 to produce methane which is then fed into the natural gas network.

Another promising technology is that from a British company AFC which takes hydrogen directly and converts it to electrical power using alkaline fuel cells.

A third technology, again from good old Blighty, is super capacitors which married to graphene, again a British discovery, could revolutionise battery storage.

I am also extremely hopeful that 4th generation nuclear will come of age in the next decade along with thorium fuelled reactors.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk

 

[Ralph]

I don't really understand why this is a negative for conservatives.

And it is - Trump was talking about appointing this guy to the EPA, who wants to get rid of the EPA and deregulate, and then added that they will still ensure clean air & clean water.

Sorry, but you can't have one without the other. If no one has been paying attention, the environment is LOSING - even with all of those onerous regulations. Set aside climate change, which I think is impossible to prove either way. We have 7,000 miles of "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, where nothing can live. We have huge loss of habitat. We have coral reefs disappearing, poisoned waterways, cities with 'breathable air' indexes and an oceanic food supply that is on the brink.

And we've done this in just 200 years. After hundreds of thousands of years of human life on the planet, and within 200 years we have portions of the planet in dire crisis.

What is wrong with promoting alternatives? Do conservatives understand that a robust alternative energy program domestically means jobs? Do they get that it is good for our national security? I know some do - but most do not.

And we can drill, baby, drill at the same time...but it is well past time that we learned to live symbiotically with our planet, instead of just draining its resources wantonly & without regard to future generations. We only get one of these earths. The debate on environment has become too ideological. It should be something we can all rally behind.

There is nothing wrong with protecting the environment...there is a great deal wrong with "politicizing" it in order to garner political power. In other words.....moral people dislike liars and con artists. Its total Bull Shit to suggest that the economy don't suffer when you attempt to give energy the bums rush and shut down the majority of energy production and jobs before any type of "viable" competitive alternative can be gradually put into place. Green Energy the way the left wants to practice it...is nothing but a job killing, energy deleting danger to both our economy and national defense.